STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HELTON
2017 OK 31
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Scott R. Helton, an Oklahoma attorney, developed a close, non‑genetic familial relationship with 91‑year‑old client Lonnie Brooks after probating her sister's estate and continued providing legal and practical care over several years.
- Helton prepared estate documents for Brooks, arranged joint account access for himself and his wife to pay her bills, and helped place Brooks' home into an LLC and transfer assets into LLCs; he became beneficiary of an annuity after Brooks executed changes (reviewed by independent counsel in that instance).
- Helton formed Helton Properties, LLC, used proceeds from Brooks’ annuity to buy rental properties, managed those rentals, and paid himself a management fee based on an unwritten agreement; he later overpaid himself and used LLC funds for personal construction checks.
- Brooks consistently testified she was competent, approved Helton’s actions, viewed the Heltons as family, and did not want transactions undone; facility staff corroborated she was not being exploited.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association charged Helton with multiple ORPC and RGDP violations; the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended a public reprimand. On de novo review the Oklahoma Supreme Court found several rule violations but imposed only a public reprimand and declined to assess costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Helton entered into improper business transactions with client (Rule 1.8(a)) | Helton entered into business transactions (LLCs, property transfers, management fees) without written disclosure, advising independent counsel, or obtaining written informed consent | Brooks was informed, acquiesced, and some transactions were reviewed by independent counsel; arrangements were to benefit Brooks | Court: Violated Rule 1.8(a) — clear and convincing evidence of business transactions without required written disclosure/consent |
| Whether transfers/gifts violated solicitation/gift rule (Rule 1.8(c)) | Transfers effectively shifted Brooks’ property to Helton/Helton Properties and amounted to impermissible substantial gifts | No evidence of donative intent or acceptance as gift; transfers were intended to hold property/income for Brooks | Court: No violation of Rule 1.8(c); record lacks evidence of gift intent/acceptance |
| Whether Helton mismanaged/converted client funds (Rule 1.15) | Helton overpaid himself and used Helton Properties funds for personal construction — constituting conversion/misappropriation | Overpayment was unintentional, no resultant harm to Brooks, and he later made restitution | Court: Proven simple conversion in violation of Rule 1.15 (intent not required for simple conversion); not misappropriation but conversion occurred |
| Appropriate discipline for multiple rule violations and professional misconduct (Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4; RGDP Rule 1.3) | Bar: suspension (minimum six months) and assessment of costs due to seriousness, conversions, and protection of public trust | Helton: unusual mitigating facts — close familial relationship, client competence and consent, lack of prior discipline, restitution and documentation after investigation | Court: Public reprimand imposed (PRT recommendation accepted); violations found (1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(a), 1.15, 8.4, RGDP 1.3) but discipline mitigated; costs not assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Boone, 367 P.3d 509 (Okla. 2016) (PRT findings advisory; court reviews disciplinary findings de novo)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Combs, 175 P.3d 340 (Okla. 2007) (discusses commingling and conversion and relevance of intent)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Mansfield, 350 P.3d 108 (Okla. 2015) (suspension imposed for commingling and simple conversion)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 4 P.3d 35 (Okla. 2000) (discipline protects the public; client non‑complaint is not dispositive)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McLain, 65 P.3d 281 (Okla. 2003) (analogous disciplinary precedent referenced for sanction comparison)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Raskin, 642 P.2d 262 (Okla. 1982) (importance of safeguarding client funds; restitution not necessarily mitigating for discipline)